On the other hand, a ruler who realizes the value of technological solutions in a magical world can have a quickly trained army of conscripted peasants who with firearms each have the firepower previously reserved for spellcasters.

No, that's the point. He can't.

He can't get from the vague idea that this explosive powder can be used to hurl projectiles to a "quickly trained army of conscripted peasants with firearms" quickly. He probably can't do it in a lifetime. He probably can't even imagine that the first crude device some crackpot demonstrates to him can be turned into something you can pass out to common soldiers.
It was a long way from the first crude devices even to the matchlock.

I have to agree with Thejeff...

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)

Just because a technology exists doesn't mean everyone immediately thinks of how to apply it. Though of course the fact that there is to be a Prestige Class for the gunslinger means a large enough group has formed who use guns to have practices they pass on to aprentices.

What you're arguing is that guns will develop slowly, because 7 years after the first powered flight a military instructor said airplanes were useless, and 7 years later they were in widespread operation? That seems to favour the opposite - as soon as technology is applied, everybody else is scrambling to catch up.

Presumably the research isn't being funded for the common man, but rather for the rich and powerful who can afford it. I'm sure you'll agree that nobody wants too much power in someone else's hands, so as a rich and powerful duke I might hire a wizard, but I might also buy a firearm for myself.

For yourself, maybe, but for all of your guards and your army, highly doubtful, and even for you, it would be more of a toy and show piece than a practical weapon.

What we're talking about is how firearms grows in a fantasy world. A first generation gunsmith might have a half dozen sales in a year, but as his work improves and he teaches his skills to another generation the techniques of the art would improve. Perhaps the next generation of gunsmith can build guns for cheaper and then the market opens up. Suddenly a king can afford to equip his elite guard with the weapons. Perhaps in another couple generations there's an entire army using the weapons. What I'm saying is that early on the weapons will be to expensive for the anyone but the rich and/or crazy, but in a few generations you could have a classic arms race that will up demand and lower the price.

Of course, all this neglects the obvious: guns built using magic. Again, I return to the historical perspective that the musket (and later rifle, and then machine gun) redefined warfare three times in the course of about 200 years. Considering that is not even the lifespan of many D&D characters, that amount of change is hard to swallow.

Yes, it requires suspension of belief to operate the standard D&D world - guns introduce yet another layer to that, and one that I am not willing to accept.

I find guns in fantasy more believable than many default fantasy settings that include many of the monsters out of the bestiary, a high-magic spell/magic system and Castles/Walls/technology level that almost entirely fails to take into account the creatures and magic that exist in the world in a consistent manner.

It seems to me that Paizo is trying to walk a tightrope with guns by making them advanced and common enough to be useful as a primary weapon for a class, but primitive and rare enough not to affect the rest of the world. That's what breaks my sense of disbelief.

It depends on what you consider advanced. It took guns centuries to advance from the primitive, often questionable arquebus/flintlock to the Colt Revolver.

In those early years they were questionable weapons often more dangerous to the user than to the target.

While the gun is the primary weapon for the gunslinger, at the emerging weapon level, it's a very suboptimal, expensive, and all in all, questionable choice for anyone else, compared to a crossbow.

Presumably the research isn't being funded for the common man, but rather for the rich and powerful who can afford it. I'm sure you'll agree that nobody wants too much power in someone else's hands, so as a rich and powerful duke I might hire a wizard, but I might also buy a firearm for myself.

For yourself, maybe, but for all of your guards and your army, highly doubtful, and even for you, it would be more of a toy and show piece than a practical weapon.

What we're talking about is how firearms grows in a fantasy world. A first generation gunsmith might have a half dozen sales in a year, but as his work improves and he teaches his skills to another generation the techniques of the art would improve. Perhaps the next generation of gunsmith can build guns for cheaper and then the market opens up. Suddenly a king can afford to equip his elite guard with the weapons. Perhaps in another couple generations there's an entire army using the weapons. What I'm saying is that early on the weapons will be to expensive for the anyone but the rich and/or crazy, but in a few generations you could have a classic arms race that will up demand and lower the price.

Of course, all this neglects the obvious: guns built using magic. Again, I return to the historical perspective that the musket (and later rifle, and then machine gun) redefined warfare three times in the course of about 200 years. Considering that is not even the lifespan of many D&D characters, that amount of change is hard to swallow.

Yes, it requires suspension of belief to operate the standard D&D world - guns introduce yet another layer to that, and one that I am not willing to accept.

The first cannons appeared in China in the twelfth century. That's about a thousand years of firearms for your fantasy games. Not too many people live for over a thousand years even in fantasy. Muskets, for example, are a 16th century innovation which means they were being used at least some 412 years ago but probably closer to 500. That's not too fast in my estimations but YMMV.

The first cannons appeared in China in the twelfth century. That's about a thousand years of firearms for your fantasy games. Not too many people live for over a thousand years even in fantasy. Muskets, for example, are a 16th century innovation which means they were being used at least some 412 years ago but probably closer to 500. That's not too fast in my estimations but YMMV.

Moreover, that timespan is in a world where muscle-powered weapons were the only competing technology. As has been pointed out multiple times, we're talking about a world where there are two competing technlogies: muscle-powered weapons and magic. The development pressures are hugely lessened in Golarion as a result, meaning that the status quo has much more inertia, and may in fact never actually change.

Again, magic is really powerful, but it's also a monopoly of power. Not every wizard is going to be altruistic. Not every lord or brute that can hire a wizard is going to be happy with the unchecked power they wield. People without magical or martial training but with money and power are going to want some sort of an edge. Firearms will be developed or you're going to have magical items that can be used by layman. Nothing funds technological innovation like fear and war.

Again, magic is really powerful, but it's also a monopoly of power. Not every wizard is going to be altruistic. Not every lord or brute that can hire a wizard is going to be happy with the unchecked power they wield. People without magical or martial training but with money and power are going to want some sort of an edge. Firearms will be developed or you're going to have magical items that can be used by layman. Nothing funds technological innovation like fear and war.

Considering that there are 12 base classes, including an NPC class, with access to 2nd level spells by level 4, I'm not convinced magical access is as rare a resource as you seem to be implying. We don't have the same demographic information in Pathfinder that the 3.5 DMG used to offer us, but I strongly suspect at least 5% of the population of Golarion has some sort of relatively meaningful magical ability. Settlements as small as two dozen people can scrape up a caster capable of 2nd level spells, in fact. That's more than enough to find, hire, or simply learn your way into the basic spells you want for military use. Firearms are only a reasonable alternative when magic isn't - hence, Alkenstar.

Again, magic is really powerful, but it's also a monopoly of power. Not every wizard is going to be altruistic. Not every lord or brute that can hire a wizard is going to be happy with the unchecked power they wield. People without magical or martial training but with money and power are going to want some sort of an edge. Firearms will be developed or you're going to have magical items that can be used by layman. Nothing funds technological innovation like fear and war.

Considering that there are 12 base classes, including an NPC class, with access to 2nd level spells by level 4, I'm not convinced magical access is as rare a resource as you seem to be implying. We don't have the same demographic information in Pathfinder that the 3.5 DMG used to offer us, but I strongly suspect at least 5% of the population of Golarion has some sort of relatively meaningful magical ability. Settlements as small as two dozen people can scrape up a caster capable of 2nd level spells, in fact. That's more than enough to find, hire, or simply learn your way into the basic spells you want for military use. Firearms are only a reasonable alternative when magic isn't - hence, Alkenstar.

5% seems reasonable. Also I'm not suggesting that magic isn't in anyway rare, just powerful (read 7th level or higher) wizards are. Also of that remaining 95% less then 1% (not counting the folks in Alkenstar) are going to be interested in buying these early weapons. All I'm pointing out is that there will be a market for firearms and that this market will have room to grow.

If I were a fantasy ruler of a kingdom I would dump my knight, monopolize power in my hands and have a army of commoners that can break any other army easily.

That is a no brainer

Yes it is, but not the way you are thinking. Fantasy rulers tend to be from the fuedal system, which that knight has a vested interest in. Those peasants that just got armed and taught they can succeed against the old order? Not so much.

Plus, the knight can still be very effective in much cheaper armor, like scale mail, whereas the musketeers require the full cost, because the short range of the pistol makes it of much less battlefield use.

If I were a fantasy ruler of a kingdom I would dump my knight, monopolize power in my hands and have a army of commoners that can break any other army easily.

And if I were a competing fantasy ruler, I would use my knights as military leaders (requiring no more money), use my gold to bring my cavalry up to speed (train/outfit a highly mobile but decently armored melee-force), and crush your peasant musketeers into the dirt.

quick breakdown on tactics:

The commoner-musketeers are either going to be trained to fight in formation for mass combat or for guerrilla combat. If it's guerrilla, then I think you'll have a helluva time doing anything but protecting your own turf. If you're talking about mass combat, here are my thoughts.

(all of the following assume level 1 combatants on both sides)

You and I have an equal-sized force. Yours is all musketeers and (for simplicity) mine is all cavalry (Warriors with a horse, breastplate, light shield, longsword/mace, lance, and light crossbow -- and before you ask, they're warriors because i spent my money training them for more than a month to do more than carry one specific exotic weapon). The way I see it (and i'm keeping things intentionally simply -- so no surprise rounds or anything), your musketeers get maybe one or two rounds (tops) firing outside of their range increment as my cavalry close. With my cavalry's higher AC and your musketeer's range penalty, they're not hitting often, and their average damage doesn't drop one of my cavalry. So minimal losses on the close. Then my cavalry hit your "optimal firing range", and your musketeers take their first real volley against touch AC's. It gets nasty here, and you are capable of landing a hit against roughly half your intended targets. Again, one hit doesn't take down one of my cavalry-men. So my cavalry-men (at around 60% fighting capacity?) cover the remaining 40 feet and wade into melee against a bunch of guys who are effectively now unarmed/unarmored commoners.

How long til the tide shifts? Who wins? My money's on the mounted cavalry. Since it takes (at least) one round to move > reload and the next to move > fire.

I guess my point is that it's nowhere near this simple. There are big economic factors, political factors (where do you think all those now-useless knights are going to go?) as well as all the other military factors that need to be accounted for... not to mention how (as the thread is talking about) existing magic influences things.

I think they can co-exist, but I think this post is way too oversimplified.

The first cannons appeared in China in the twelfth century. That's about a thousand years of firearms for your fantasy games. Not too many people live for over a thousand years even in fantasy. Muskets, for example, are a 16th century innovation...

As I said before, the concept of a "China" in a D&D campaign is basically a non-factor: it is either far outside the normal campaign world, or non-existent.

What I am arguing is that once gunpowder hits "Europe" (read: closely packed group of dozens of competing nations/baronies/etc; also read: most D&D campaign worlds) things progress quickly.

If I were a fantasy ruler of a kingdom I would dump my knight, monopolize power in my hands and have a army of commoners that can break any other army easily.

And if I were a competing fantasy ruler, I would use my knights as military leaders (requiring no more money), use my gold to bring my cavalry up to speed (train/outfit a highly mobile but decently armored melee-force), and crush your peasant musketeers into the dirt.

Good point, Unklbuck.

Eben, you are overlooking the fact that training and equipping a cavalry force destroys the knight caste, although cheaper than equipping them with guns (about 350gp per cavalryman) the amount of training and resources is vastly higher.

You are basically describing the American Revolutionary War and agreeing with us, that guns destroy the old world order. From there it is less than 100 years to trench warfare.

It could as easily be a cultural/legal issues that keep guns from becoming popular. 17th-19th century Japan spring to mind as an example of both socially inaccessible gun powder and where all those now-useless knights are going to go.

Jal, why is the history of asia irrelevant to world building? I get a fair amount of inspiration watching Downton Abbey and lord knows that's not D&D.

Edit: Personally I always thought fireball wands and UMD would be the cause of trench warfare in D&D-land.

Fair enough, and I'll admit to not being a historian. I guess my real point was that the use of firearms isn't an instant "i win" button, and that the evolution of technology is far more complicated than that -- especially when the complete unknown of magic is thrown in.

The first cannons appeared in China in the twelfth century. That's about a thousand years of firearms for your fantasy games. Not too many people live for over a thousand years even in fantasy. Muskets, for example, are a 16th century innovation...

As I said before, the concept of a "China" in a D&D campaign is basically a non-factor: it is either far outside the normal campaign world, or non-existent.

What I am arguing is that once gunpowder hits "Europe" (read: closely packed group of dozens of competing nations/baronies/etc; also read: most D&D campaign worlds) things progress quickly.

If we're just talking about gunpowder that was a 9th century invention. We're talking dark ages here. The Mongols used cannons in Europe in 1241 and within sixty years European scientists had the recipe. Powder was being made in England at the Tower of London around 1346.

I've always thought Jack Sparrow and Ezio Auditore have places in Golarion, both wield guns so I'm in the pro-gun team I guess. As I said earlier though, the game exists within a specific time period at which point, by default, guns have not become common place. If the world of Golarion changes massively thanks to the introduction of firearms within the next hundred years and that bothers you house rule them out of the game since the problems caused by their introduction would have to be house ruled into the defacto setting.

I've always thought Jack Sparrow and Ezio Auditore have places in Golarion, both wield guns so I'm in the pro-gun team I guess. As I said earlier though, the game exists within a specific time period at which point, by default, guns have not become common place. If the world of Golarion changes massively thanks to the introduction of firearms within the next hundred years and that bothers you house rule them out of the game since the problems caused by their introduction would have to be house ruled into the defacto setting.

That's precisely my point of view.

For the record, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone, I'm just enjoying the debate and presenting my personal ideas.

It could as easily be a cultural/legal issues that keep guns from becoming popular. 17th-19th century Japan spring to mind as an example of both socially inaccessible gun powder and where all those now-useless knights are going to go.

Jal, why is the history of asia irrelevant to world building? I get a fair amount of inspiration watching Downton Abbey and lord knows that's not D&D.

Edit: Personally I always thought fireball wands and UMD would be the cause of trench warfare in D&D-land.

If I were going to use guns, I think I would agree that the result would be something like pre-industrial Japan.

The reason I bring up China is because it is a vastly different cultural and political entity from medieval Europe. If your campaign world is entirely Euro-centric, you are basically beginning with the notion that gunpowder was discovered in Europe, and not some far-off mysterious nation.

More specifically, such a campaign world is more likely to apply the time frame of Europe in developing military applications of gunpowder, rather than the historical global perspective of China-Europe, which was almost a millenia.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. On the subject of fireballs/trench warfare - magic as built in checks (dispel and counterspell) that would eliminate the need for that somewhat (but not entirely). Of course, any army using trench warfare against a mage is just begging for a cloudkill!

Yeah I saw that, and have to put myself in the "firearms are powerful but can't stand alone" camp. My biggest problem with PF guns has always been reload times.

As re cloudkill in trench warfare, I'll give a million bucks to anyone who can explain the differences between 1) couldkill and mustard gas, and 2) a necklace of adaptation and a gas mask. I take it back, D&D is Downton Abbey :P

Yeah I saw that, and have to put myself in the "firearms are powerful but can't stand alone" camp. My biggest problem with PF guns has always been reload times.

As re cloudkill in trench warfare, I'll give a million bucks to anyone who can explain the differences between 1) couldkill and mustard gas, and 2) a necklace of adaptation and a gas mask. I take it back, D&D is Downton Abbey :P

I can't say with 100% certainty, but I believe cloudkill was intended to replicate chemical warfare, in the same sense fireball was the magical emulation of a catapult.

And if I were a competing fantasy ruler, I would use my knights as military leaders (requiring no more money), use my gold to bring my cavalry up to speed (train/outfit a highly mobile but decently armored melee-force), and crush your peasant musketeers into the dirt.

Just one thing about tactics. My musketeers aren't aiming for your knights in the first volley, but at the horses, since that is the smart way to stop a cavalry charge. That way I get twice as many volleys off, since on foot, your solders take twice as long to charge.

Also I would arrange my soldiers in two ranks to keep up continuous fire given the reloading time, thus subjecting your now dismounted cavalry to up to three times as much fire as they anticipated.

Pike and Shot is the actual tactical solution to this situation, but it cannot be modeled in PF, since it would require polearms with 15-20' reach. I guess you could do the fantasy variant of "Enlarge Person and Shot" though.